On January 31, 1945, Private Edward Donald “Eddie” Slovik became a curious outlier of World War II: he was executed by firing squad by the U.S. Army for desertion. He is the only person to have been so punished for that crime since the Civil War.

Pvt Slovik was, by all accounts, quiet and helpful, by no means a coward, and more than willing to aid in the effort of World War II, traits which would have put him among a large class of that war’s veterans. Unfortunately, he was also immobilized by shelling. Equally unfortunately, he knew it, and he decided to do something about it.

Slovik and a friend, Pvt John F. Tankey, first separated from their detachment under artillery fire in late August 1944, shortly after being shipped to France. The pair hooked up with a Canadian unit and spent six weeks pitching in. Having recused themselves from the hard shelling others were experiencing on the front line, they opted to rejoin their regular U.S. unit: Slovik and Tankey sent a letter to their commanding officer explaining their absence and returned on Oct. 7.

But the front lines were not a place for Pvt Slovik.

After his assignment to the rifle unit, which would face imminent danger during shelling, Slovik asked to be placed in the rear guard, indicating he was too scared to remain in front. His request was refused. He then reportedly asked whether leaving the unit again would be considered desertion, was told it would be, and opted for the seemingly safer route of, well, deserting. One day later, Slovik was back at a U.S. camp, this time turning himself in to the camp cook. He had drafted a letter explaining his actions and indicating that he knowingly deserted, permanently recording his guilt on paper.

It’s not clear whether Pvt Slovik was acting on principles or out of an understanding of the U.S. military judicial system. He was by no means the only soldier without affinity for the conditions of war, particularly on the allied side. During the war, thousands of soldiers were tried and convicted in military courts for desertion, but up to then, all had received only time in the brig. What is clear is that Slovik was repeatedly offered opportunities to return to the line, and he equally repeatedly refused.

The case was adjudicated on Nov 11 by nine staff officers of the 28th Division, none of whom had yet been in battle. One of those judges, Benedict B. Kimmelman, wrote a stark and intriguing account of his role in the story of Pvt Slovik, capturing the scene thusly:

Five witnesses were heard. The cross-examinations were perfunctory. The defense made no closing argument. The court recessed for ten minutes, resumed, and retired almost immediately afterward. Three ballots were taken in closed court, the verdicts unanimously guilty on all counts. In open court once more, the president announced the verdict and the sentence: to be dishonorably discharged, to forfeit all pay and allowances due, and to be shot to death with musketry. The trial had begun at 10:00 A.M.; it was over at 11:40 A.M.

As with all court martial cases, Slovik’s was sent to a judge advocate for review. His criminal record, including everything from destruction of property to public intoxication to embezzlement, did not endear him to the reviewer. More importantly, though, the advocate felt Slovik could be made an example:

He has directly challenged the authority of the government, and future discipline depends upon a resolute reply to this challenge. If the death penalty is ever to be imposed for desertion, it should be imposed in this case, not as a punitive measure nor as retribution, but to maintain that discipline upon which alone an army can succeed against the enemy.

Strangely, Pvt Slovik was the only person who would be exemplified this way.

Though the military tried 21,000 desertion cases and passed down 49 death sentences for desertion during the war, it carried out only Slovik’s. And in the war’s final battles, with Germany collapsing, his execution seemed like a surreal throwback. As Kimmelman notes, hundreds if not thousands of soldiers were strictly guilty of dereliction of duty and desertion in the waning days of 1944.

They’re not shooting me for deserting the United Stated Army — thousands of guys have done that. They’re shooting me for bread I stole when I was 12 years old. (Source)

Three weeks after his conviction and three weeks before the Battle of the Bulge, Slovik’s execution order was confirmed by the 28th Division’s commander, Major General Norman “Dutch” Cota. Cota was disturbed by Slovik’s forthrightness in confessing to the desertion, and, as a front line commander who had sustained severe casualty rates in the Battle of Hurtgen Forest, had no sympathy for the crime.

After an appeal to the deaf ears of Dwight Eisenhower shortly before the sentence was to be carried out, Slovik was out of options. He was taken to the courtyard of an estate near the village of Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines and shot by 11 Army marksmen* at 10 a.m. By 10:04, as they were reloading, he was declared dead. His body was interred at a French cemetery, and after decades of lobbying the U.S. government, his remains were returned to Michigan in 1987.

Because he was dishonorably discharged, Slovik was not entitled to a pension, and his wife, Antoinette, stopped receiving payments. Curiously, though the Army managed to communicate this to her, they omitted the bit about the execution. She found out in 1953 from William Bradford Huie.

Perhaps more interesting than this film was its never-produced predecessor, which is entitled to a place in the history of the Hollywood Blacklist. Frank Sinatra acquired rights to The Execution of Private Slovik and in 1960 announced that he would produce it as his directorial debut — with the script of this inherently political story to be written by “Hollywood Ten” blacklistee Albert Maltz. Maltz and other blackballed writers had continued working pseudonymously during the anti-Communist blacklist, but Sinatra’s openly announcing an intent to hire and credit Maltz constituted a significant crack in the wall — even though commercial and political heat eventually forced Sinatra to abandon the project. This event has treatment in a recommended episode of the magnificent cinema-history podcast You Must Remember This.

* The firing squad included 12 marksmen, but one was given a blank. Despite their skill, the 11 remaining shooters did not manage to kill him instantaneously.

122 thoughts on “1945: Private Eddie Slovik, the last American shot for desertion”

Comment navigation

As some have already stated repeatedly, Slovik’s case is not as blatant and obvious an example of military cruelty as it seems at first glance.

Slovik was indeed very stupid, a coward, a persistent petty criminal and a worthless soldier, but the Army knew that when they dragged him ass-first out of 4F status and sent him to Europe as an infantryman. What cooked his goose was that some group of “barracks room attorneys” got ahold of him during his first time in the stockade and pointed out that if he just kept refusing to fight and blaming his nerves, they’d give him a life sentence and then commute it after the war.

Eddie already had nothing to lose and didn’t care about his civilian benefits, so he grabbed on to that idea and rode it literally right to his grave because he wasn’t smart enough to realize he was blatantly rubbing the law in the Army’s face at precisely the wrong moment.

He was saying “Listen, I know you don’t want to kill me. I’ll take a life sentence and a Dishonorable and you won’t have to look at me again until the war’s over. Just stick me in the jailhouse, I don’t mind it there one bit.”

The Army was saying “The punishment is execution. The LENIENT sentence is life in prison. You’ve got SOME nerve expecting we’ll simply show you leniency without you even trying to pretend you deserve it. I think we’ll shoot you instead!”.

Eddie got shot because he was the only guy from that dirtball fraternity who wasn’t smart enough to pretend he wasn’t actually pulling a scam to avoid being shot by the Germans. He basically pulled his own trigger.

“Slovik’s criminal record made him classified as unfit for duty in the U.S. military (4-F), but, shortly after the couple’s first wedding anniversary, Slovik was reclassified as fit for duty (1-A) and subsequently drafted by the Army.” Wikipedia

He was drafted and forced to fight, kill, and risk his life in a war he did not belive in. If WW2 was so “righteous” why did we the land of the free have to use conscripts? Forced to fight under pain of death? And I do have the right to ask this I am a US vet myself.

It’s not that he was against the war; he wasn’t. He just didn’t want to kill and the combat bothered him. Yet he died bravely.

I suspect that you have your own set of problems: you’re not just making a point about Slovik but you’re railing about the United States. Me thinks you have a special agenda, mr. “Veteran”. Also, to even ask that question about the US shows a total lack of knowledge about the war in general

Only those that have ever been in an extreme combat situation have a right to comment either way. Everyone else needs to shut the f..k up!
Day after day. Shells coming in. Buddies being blown to pieces. Friends bleeding to death in your arms! The carnage beyond belief! Unless that is your background, shut up! Even the bravest can only hold out so long! Stupid shits that call someone a coward and have no clue!

Is it not understandable that out of thousands in the army that are conscripted (not volunteered) that some will not be able to handle the stress of being close to death from gunfire and shelling?………and furthermore that they are so scared of death that they would rather be imprisoned?.

There are all kinds of people with all kinds of personal fears. Some people freeze in fear if put on stage in front of a crowd, some if at heights, so don’t come all high and mighty and pretend you can’t imagine someone scared of being shot and bombed with the intent to kill.

If your child was at war and couldn’t cope in the same fashion as Slovik would you agree that they were shot for being scared?. If you would you’re either a moron or a liar or both.

Btw: My father was a veteran of WW2 whose brother and uncle were killed in combat, and he couldn’t tolerate that thinking where his fellow veterans were putting down civilians, telling them that if they weren’t there they couldn’t talk about it. He found that attitude repulsive.

Andrew Eppink,,,with all due respect, it;s absurd to say that only veterans or combat veterans should speak of these things. That doesn’t make any sense. That’s like saying we can’t discuss Hitler because we were not there; or that only veterans of the Second World War can discuss it.

I carried a draft card towards the end of the Vietnam war. My mother was telling me to move to Canada until the war was over, but I said no. I was willing to go if called. And i have been in perilous situations in my life: I’ve been shot at, and I’ve been close to death twice. Things happen to folks, ad as we grow up we learn about who we are. And I’m telling you right now that I would never have done what pvt. Slovik did, and that’s based on what I know about myself. And this is how I have lived my life. So, my opinion is every bit as valid as the next person’s opinion and this is how it is for all who post here.

Just because I’ve been close to death twice, do I and others like me only have the right to speak of how that feels? No, we all have that right as we all contemplate it every day. When folks close ranks and “look down” upon others who haven’t had the same group experiences that they may have had, they’re walking in the absurd. We all must experience this life.

I am a wounded Vietnam veteran, I was in country 1968 to 1969. my squad was over ran by nva troops. I took two shots in my bace,there was 11 of us ,and we all was cared to death, I am sure we all thought about running away, but there was no way we were out numbered and out flancked. If anyone that is voicing their app ion on this site says they didn’t think like running away well he is a lyer, so don’t judge someone you don’t know a dam thing about.my opion take it or leave it.

Slovik was my great uncle, no BS and I was with a LURP unit in Nam, you know 4 man recon hunters!!!!!! I served!!!!! but if my grandson would of served in Afghanistan!! I would of prevented it. For what? weapons of mass destruction? 911 did not equal Iraq!!! Bush comitteed an act of aggression with his buddy Chaney by sending boys to their death, for nothing.As far as I’m concerned Bush was out of line and so was Cheney!! they sent boys to their deaths. Collin Powell new that it was BS after the fact!!! I served under him for special missions and lost total respect for his decision making after this war that the “R”s and Bush’s legacy, they murdered american boys. I know what killing is all about and the horrors of war first hand. The American Sniper movie and thats all it is. No need to make a hero who walks on water of the American Sniper. He enjoyed killing like I did in war when my fellow americans died in my arms,there is absolutely no glory in killing because it becomes second hand and an enjoyment in battle, but afterward it sinks in and changes your soul.

I just came here to read all the petty ignorant comments written by grown men arguing like little sissy babies & please excuse my sarcasm. Some people aren’t cut out for war or at least in the front line infantry… Maybe Slovik should’ve had a job as the army cook that he surrendered to. It makes sense to put people where they will perform their best, if you shoot very well then you got yourself a possible sniper. As for myself, I prefer being on the front line. -CPT(R) K. Norris

There can be no reasonable doubt that Slovik was guilty of desertion in the face of the enemy . Slovik practically begged his superiors to charge him and for the court to find him guilty. There was no evidence that could have been presented at Slovik’s trial that would have mitigated his guilt. None.

Why would Slovik do that? He had a record of petty crime and incarceration from when he was a child and a juvenile. Having done time in jail, Slovik was able to judge from his own personal experience whether the stockade was preferable to combat in a front line rifle company. Slovik concluded it was. That Slovik had done this cynical calculation and felt he was entitled to incarceration — with a warm room, three hot meals, free cigarettes, and a cot — over service was evident from the record.

Slovik badly and fatally miscalculated.

Had he been less bold in communicating his calculation, had it not happened when US Army combat casualties and desertions were skyrocketing, had his case not come to Eisenhower for final decision in the midst of the Battle of the Bulge, perhaps Slovik would have gotten what he expected.

But none of that happened and Slovik was left with having chosen very poorly.

A difficult case, I think. The only opinions worth reading are those of combat vets, MSgt Simmons presumably, and a few others. The rest is garbage. The situation in the US is a disgrace – few have military ownership anymore. There ought to be an exceptionless draft again, whatever riots etc result. Every young man can do something for the nation for two years, not necessarily even military. I was in the USCG ’66-’70, have no direct combat experience but did fly into SEA on C-130 crew.

PVT. Slovik was used as an example. Punishment was way to severe for Eddie and not others in the same boat. I’m sorry, but Eisenhower was mistaken in this ruling, if he was even involved at all. An aide may have signed for IKE and Ok’d the execution. A very sad case, no question about it. When thousands dessert and only one is put to death, this does not wash. Code of Justice broke down and they swept it under the rug.

you may be right Kevin as I think he’s so brainwashed that his loyalties lie w/ the enemy. All the more reason to execute him as a traitor. He really did worse than Pvt. Slovik b/c his loyalties were w/ the enemy. Execute him is what I say if he is proven to be a enemy sympathizer.

You now, I think Bergdahl has something wrong with him mentally. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. In my view, if it’s proven Bergdahl did these things, I believe a long stretch in the brig is what he needs.

Something wrong with him mentally? How about spinally and intellectually? It sounds to me like he just decided he could, in effect, tell the brass: “I don’t want to fight, so send me to jail. I’ve been in jail before and it’s not all that bad. I’m guilty of desertion and that’s my ticket out of combat. You can’t make me fight.” Never a good idea to explicitly challenge the power of the brass in war-time. If he had intended to maneuver the brass into executing him, he couldn’t have done it better. No way they could establish a precedent that, to get out of combat, all you had to do was go to jail until shortly after the end of the war.

that being said, we will have to agree to disagree. What I am watching in current time is how pvt bergdahl has been treated as a hero & waiting to see how fairly they treat him by giving him a fair trial & not a rush to judgement and execution & do a complete investion, something slovik was denied. This bergdahl case will be a measure to compare the two cases. If it is proven that bergdahl not only disserted but his loyalties went to the enemy then he should be executed. Do we at least agree on that?

He faced the firing squad apparently without fear, and he should have picked up his weapon and faced the Germans the same way. He had a good chance of surviving in combat, but no chance of surviving the firing squad.

He owed it to every other young man on the line facing the enemy to do his duty. He failed to do so and was killed for it.

I wish for the truth to come out re whether bergdahl is a desserter or traitor and gave comfort & aid to the enemy. Meanwhile, it seems too much talk is now given to bringing this man back to the USA and under a bad swap for sure. But that is a done deal and now we have to face the consquences & hope these 5 terrorist masterminds will not return to their plans for mass killings. We need to now ask why Susan rice & jay carney, etc went on national TV telling lies and why barack honored the bergdahls and their son w/ a ceremony/celebration in the rose garden when so many other truly honorable men who served w/ distinction are ignored.

Once again the idiot, phucktard, liberturd, hang wringers, judging the past actions of great men, compared with their degenerate, depraved, reprobate mental states of today, is not only completely asinine, it’s just plain wrong. Leave it to the Libturds to cry over the spilled blood of a deserter. No wonder they love the petulant, purple puss potentate of the Potomac so much.

BJ, I have no idea what you are talking abt or if it was directed at me…Edna. I will say if you reference Bowe Bergdah, it is PROVEN and substantiated by the Pentagon that he left his post w/o approval, e.g., AWOL at best, dessertion most probably. I don’t know if you are an obama zombie, but get real, you have been snookered for 8 years…time to think of our country and not barack & mickey obama.

The take on Eddie is interesting. thank you for your input. As far as our most recent alleged disserter, Bowe Bergdahl, I am very curious to see how barack’s spin is going to progress on this. I am not opposed to bringing this man home, but I am against it being done based on lies by barack, susan rice & jay carney, e.g., his health. I would encourage barack and his cronies to start being truthful and honoring the oath of office he took to uphold our Constitution and not destroy our country.

I have no opinion re: Slovik, but I would like to point out that (at least as far as I know) it’s only desertion during wartime that’s a death-penalty offense. And we are not, technically, at war with anyone.

Actually, the Constitution does not dictate what language needs to appear in a declaration of war to make it legitimate. Congress could call an authorization for the President to commit forces to a conflict a “ham sandwich”, but it’s still a declaration of war.

Congress’ 434-1 authorization to go into Afghanistan, despite it’s being called a “Use of Force Resolution” is still a declaration of war.

You state categorically that Slovik was “no coward”, yet the excuses he gave for his repeated desertion was that he was “too scared”. He was also a cynical street-wise thief who had determined that you could desert with very few consequences, and that any sentence he would be given would be commuted at the end of the war. He did in fact lie when he said he was being executed for stealing “bread and chewing gum” when he was 12. Actually he broke into a foundry in Detroit at 12 and stole brass for resale. Jean Valjean he was not! Perhaps he read Hugo while in jail. And though you state that he was executed during the war’s final battles and Germany was collapsing, the Battle of the Bulge was actually in full bloom when the papers came before Eisenhower. Ike had seen enough dead men and graves of honorable men; to shoot a deserter would certainly save lives by letting those similar to Slovik know that there would be consequences for deserting in a shooting war. Eisenhower had the moral courage to allow the execution to be carried out. Such courage will not be found in the Obama administration.

Edna: I think he should be punished to the maximum to include firing squad. Not only did he desert, but he provide aid in the form of intelligence on our soldiers techniques, tactics, weak points, etc and comfort to the enemy. Not including the lives that were lost looking for him. To me that is treason also, an example should be set for future generations about desertion under fire and treason. He took an oath and was a volunteer, there are no excuses.

This article fails to mention the letter after his SECOND desertion stated that he would refuse to go back to combat. He was offered the chance to tear up the letter several times. He was then offered the chance to return or join another combat unit repeatedly, at almost ever stage of the process. He absolutely refused to return and explicitly wanted to be court martialed believing he would just be imprisoned. He had severed time before. It is one thing to show mercy to deserters who show some contrition (even if feigned), it is another for them to think they can game the system for a safe and “relatively” confortable cell over the danger and hardship of combat.

During the Jimmy Carter administration, Annette Slovik’s lawyers tried to get a pension for her through an appeal to the Board for Correction of Military Records. The board turned the appeal down, and she received no money. I was in the Army at the time, and I thought feelings against a pension for Slovik ran high among soldiers. She died not long afterward.

Flying with the 9th Air Force on the Italian front in World War Two 98 America pilots and aircrew deserted with their aircraft by flying to the neutral countries of Switzerland and Sweden.They were interred there for the remainder of the war.
Far away from the battlefield these men lived in luxury,,living in hotels,eating fine foods,no rationing.They were given an allowance and could even buy gifts to send home.
After the war was over these men were sent back to America and received a slap on the wrist from the military.They were reduced in rank and required to pay a small fine,then given a General Discharge.

Mark Twain deserted twice from combat during the American Civil War,once from the Confederate Army and once from the Union Army. Perhaps he,too,could have been shot.President Lincoln pardoned many such deserters,allowing them the chance to honorably return to duty.

Slovik was very unlucky. He deserted at a time when the Germans were heavily attacking U.S. forces in Belgium. The battle is called the battle of the “Bulge.” Eisenhower was concerned that the U. S. could still lose the war, and he ordered the execution to be carried out. After that battle, winning the war was never in doubt, and no other death sentences were carried out. Slovik was a loser. Getting all worked up about it today is pointless.

@tae For one, he was drafted while you likely volunteered. That right there speaks of the different mind sets involved and why you can’t use your personal experience to judge the actions of Slovak. But even if he wasn’t, it’s a shame to kill a man simply because he lacks the necessary austerity to participate in a war. What he did wasn’t honorable, but many, like myself, do not think it was deserving of death.

I first learned of Eddie Slovik when the TV movie was aired. No one should pity Slovik. He was a coward and deserved what he got. The question should be, why was he the only one? All of the deserters should have been shot. If the Army had a policy of shooting deserters, there would have been very few. Only someone who has been in combat understands the bigger picture. Slovik let down every other soldier in his unit. An Army can only succeed if it operates as a cohesive unit. I served two tours in Vietnam. It is not unheard of, but seldom talked about, guys who ran under fire and somehow got shot in the back as they ran off. No trial was necessary.

The army needs unquestioning fodder like you David, but surely even you through your fog of closed mindedness can appreciate that not everyone can do what’s required at war. Your mum probably couldn’t, so would you kill her?

I am an American and a combat decorated US Marine. I was scared, terrified, and trained to suppress my imagination to the horrors I was experiencing. I did not develop PTSD. I could have run and hid; I did not. I could have feigned any number of illnesses; I did not. I chose not that path. Slovik did and put his comrades to task do his job. I see no reason why Slovik should be pitied.

I’m glad you don’t suffer from PTSD, tae, but your lack of empathy may be an indicator that something is not entirely right with you psychologically. It can be a very dangerous condition that often impacts family and others close to you. Depending on the cause of this condition, it may be treatable, or you may suffer from some kind of personality disorder. Unfortunately, the latter is not particularly responsive to treatment, and can cause havoc in families that will impact generations to come.

I am writing a book on Hamtramck, Mich. Eddie Slovik lived in Hamtramck at one point, and I am trying to locate a photo of him. Is the photo on this apge copyrighted? If so, do you know who I can contact to obtain reproduction permission?

I have always thought what happened to Eddie Slovik was a tragedy. I think it was something that should have never happened(his death). In “peacetime” to kill someone is usually considered murder. However in his case, he met his death, because he felt he could not kill someone. What a sad irony that is.